Today is Thanksgiving here in Canada and one thing I am especially thankful for is this beautiful world God has gifted us. (1) But Christianity has a questionable history when it comes to how we should care for our home, at least in common perception today. It is a topic, which sadly, is too often neglected by Christian apologists.
What does environmentalism have to do with Christian apologetics? Well, the discipline of apologetics generally covers three areas. First, there are foundational topics to the discipline, such as epistemology, truth and relativism, etc. Second, would be the more traditional topics such as the existence of God, the Resurrection, and miracles. But, thirdly, in any given age, there are ‘hot’ topics within the culture that impact Christianity. In our time, some of these topics include abortion or the creation / evolution debate. In other times, these topics might have been low priority or not discussed (recognized) at all. Environmentalism is one of these ‘hot’ topics today.
How ‘hot’ this topic is depends on where you live and what circles you keep acquaintance with. If you live in a place such as Vancouver or San Francisco, you might already be quite concerned about the environment, Christian or not. It is part of the culture in these places. In this case, you likely encounter people who blame Christians for much of the environmental damage. You probably should have a good response (ie: apologetics!).
If you live in some other places,(2) it might be a hot topic because environmentalists are seen as wackos to be laughed at while one burns an extra gallon or two of gasoline in one’s monster vehicle. If you are a Christian who cares for creation in this setting, you will be interacting with these people and need something to say. If you are one of those people with little regard for the environment, you may need to learn a bit more about what the Bible says on the topic, as well as understand the fears (legitimate and otherwise) of environmentalists. The legitimate fears are something ‘creation care’ embracing Christians need to be wary of as well.
First, let us consider what the Bible has to say about creation care. The most fundamental command given to humanity is found in Genesis 1:28 and reiterated in Genesis 2:15 in more detail (Genesis 2 is like a zoomed in look at our origins, focusing specifically on humanity; these are NOT two separate creation accounts!). In Genesis 1 we see the command to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth. We are also told to subdue and rule over the earth. If one were to take this alone with certain definitions of the Hebrew words, one could get the idea of being a harsh master to the earth. However, remember that Genesis 2 focuses in and provides more detail. Here we are told to ‘work’ the land, where the Hebrew word has to do with being a ‘servant to.’ We’re told ‘to keep’ which has meanings which include ‘watch’ and ‘guard,’ but also interestingly, it is the same Hebrew word found in the common benediction from Numbers 6:24, ‘the Lord bless you and keep you.’ Let’s hope God has a bit better understanding of ‘keeping’ us than how many people ‘keep’ the earth! Theology matters here folks.
Another point to keep in mind is that our modern technology enables humanity to have a pretty large impact on the environment. This issue is actually fairly new, as it is only within the last few generations that we have had this ability. Historically, Christians did not write on this topic extensively. In other words, there isn’t much in our traditions as a controlling factor on our behavior. Thus, we need to be really careful to re-examine this issue and not just do what others around us are and have been doing. From an apologetic standpoint, we need to admit that Christians do not have such a great track-record on the environment, especially some sectors of Christianity. However, it is also fair to point out that very few people of any worldview have a very good of a track-record. Again, this is because people, in general, haven’t been concerned about this topic for long.
The blame placed on Christians is, sadly, somewhat founded. The concept of ‘having dominion’ if understood improperly (and many Christians have) can lead to abuse of the earth. A number of years ago I was in a debate on a web discussion board (pre-blogs) where a Christian was proudly proclaiming that he purposely bought a gas-guzzler and was taunting the environmentalists that he was going to burn as much fossil-fuels as possible. Is there anything Christian about such behavior, environmental or otherwise? Christians in the USA also tend to align with political parties which have a questionable track record on the environment, yet fail to critique that party on that aspect of their policy (no political party is perfect, and there may well be other reasons to select it, but a Christian should never just take the ‘whole package’ of any political party without question). The result of this has been a good deal of hostility directed towards Christians by environmentalists. (3)
One such topic is the current debate over global warming. While this issue is very complex, and I don’t believe either ‘camp’ is completely convincing, many Christians are not helping the situation with their attitude towards the matter. Worse, they often fail to meaningfully engage the issue properly to keep the destructive actions and policies of either side from negatively affecting both the environment and humanity. Here is what we know: 1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are produced in many unnatural ways by humans or under human influence, and in fairly large quantities. 2) This does have some effect on global climate. What we don’t know is: 1) the extent of human effect (scientists make models and predictions, but they are only as perfect as the inputs, and global climate is REALLY complex). The best estimates I have seen put it at ~50% 2) the full ramifications of various corrections we might attempt (apart from reducing our production which would return to less impact). The politics surrounding this issue are HUGE on both sides.
Christians should want to work towards the truth of the matter, but also should want to, without question, reduce pollution. We should also be concerned about the effects of policies which might make a trade-off which puts the environment over human concerns. And no, I’m not talking about putting concerns of pollution over the summer cabin and jet-ski (of course we should do that within reason), but things like letting thousands starve to save a few tons of CO2 produced; or, being so fearful of global warming that we try something stupid like seeding the oceans, etc. We must take actions, but also make sure they are very well thought through. We must ultimately trust in God to take care of us when we have to make trade-offs which favor flourishing of humanity over the environment (and because we make an impact, we will always have to do this). We must also recognize that God commanded us to take care of the environment. This means improve, not just be zero impact (even if that were possible). The other problem Christians need to be aware of is to balance keeping the earth in such a way as not to get distracted by only one issue and miss others. Should global warming be our primary environmental focus? Is concern over global warming even the best reason to curb our fossil-fuel consumption? Is fossil-fuel consumption even the main problem (for example, cows contribute more to greenhouse gasses than all transportation combined). How should we best react? These are all questions Christians would want to address as we react.
Do Christians have anything to fear from the environmental movement, and thus warrant some rejection of it? They often do. First, there are often some fairly strong religious connections for many in the movement, such as Gaia worship or animistic religions. The key here is to be an informed and discerning Christian so as not to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’!
I recently ran across a rather absurd article (being passed around by Christian apologists!) by Brendan O’Neill writing for The Telegraph called “By coating their roofs in naff and useless solar panels, Christian churches are effectively converting to the backward religion of heliolatry.” The basic thrust of the article is that the only reason churches might install solar cells is to bow to the environmental movement, and in doing so, they have become a new religion. While the article is a bit tongue-in-cheek at points, the author actually seems serious about the points he is making. Either that, or the author is just going for click-bait, but sadly, it seems some Christians agree (and strongly enough to pass it along). This shows that the environmentalists fears are founded as well. Note that solar cells do have a 5-10 year period (4) where the energy they produce is simply going towards reclaiming the energy used to manufacture them, and then to pay-off the purchase price and installation cost. However, I think most people who install solar cells are making a long-term investment. Once that 5-10 year period is up, it is then wisely using God’s free gift of our sun to capture energy in a more direct way. From where I sit, that is simply using our God-given brains. Also, solar cells are only a small part of what we all could be doing to save energy and reduce pollution.
Some Christians also let their eschatology (view of end times) negatively influence their view on environmentalism. One such view is that the earth and universe are going to be destroyed or burned up and be replaced with a new universe (heavens) and earth. Other Christians disagree and see the new earth as a renewal. Either way, I don’t really see how this has an impact on the Christian reaction towards the environment. Either way, God clearly commanded us to take care of the earth! Either way, unless Christ returns today (something NO Christian could know), we are taking care of the earth for a future generation or minimally for everyone to use and enjoy until Christ returns. No matter how much they might feel they know better than God on this one, is it a good idea to abandon God’s most fundamental commands to humanity for ANY reason?
How can Christians positively respond to the issue of the environment? First, we need to stress that God commanded we care for the earth. In that sense, the Christian should be the ultimate environmentalist (once the term is stripped of false views). We can reassure people that Christians have a long history of being for technology and science when properly used, and have actually originated and contributed heavily to these advancements. However, we do need to point out that Christians hold humanity in a special place which some environmental movements do not. This should never be used to promote human environmental abuse, but human flourishing (shalom). Christianity certainly teaches, when rightly understood, a great responsibility to care for the earth. Doing so is one of the primary commands of God to humanity.
——————————
Notes:
- (1) This is even more evident since our family is blessed to live in an epicenter of natural beauty, Vancouver, B.C. Canada.
- (2) like Cleveland or Detroit, a couple of the least ‘green’ cities in N.A., where the culture is certainly not used to being concerned over the environment, if not opposed to taking care of it.
- (3) A great book which touches on this is Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job by Hugh Ross (my review here), where Hugh argues that if Christians pay attention to the Bible and Biblical principals, a win-win situation is possible. Unless we’re simply being greedy (sinful), we can find solutions which will keep the earth AND be economically sound.
- (4) it depends on electricity costs and solar cell technology used
Photo: Water Drops by Candie_N
This article was first published at TilledSoil.org. Copyright © 2012 TilledSoil.org. All rights reserved.
Hi Steve, thanks for taking the time to reply. I do find some parts of your position quite concerning, and I’ll explain why below. But I first ought to point out that I’m not American, which I expect gives me a completely different view of the media/politics around this topic. Here (in the UK), the reality of climate change isn’t a highly-charged, partisan political issue. It is rare to hear a politician deny that climate change is happening, or that it needs significant action (there are, of course, policy arguments).
The few politicians and commentators that do deny climate change, however, are all part of the right-wing fringe. The mainstream right-wing party officially accepts the science. So here, climate change denial is generally viewed as a crazy right-wing attack on the (scientific and political) consensus.
This matters, because when you say it is a ‘politically-charged’ issue I think you zoom into this with a very North American lens (as do RTB in their articles), and a significant amount seems to focus on the views of Al Gore. It is entirely the other way around in the UK (and Germany, having also lived there) – and I suspect much of the rest of Europe. We tend to note that those denying climate change are linked to, or funded by, fossil fuel companies, and are rightly suspicious. People here who advocate action on climate change simply aren’t seen as having an agenda – I’m not even sure I can think of what such an agenda might look like. It might also be interesting to note that in Europe, our climate change policies are often viewed as being right-wing and market-based (e.g. the carbon trading market).
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
So I suppose my first point is just to caution against that kind of national bias. We know that climate scepticism is a largely Anglophone phenomenon, and this needs bearing in mind:
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/about/news/item/article/poles-apart-the-international-repo.html
I would therefore urge you to read this (heartbreaking) insight into the way other countries view climate change:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-21/kiribati-climate-change-destroys-pacific-island-nation#p1
The scepticism over here is also more nuanced. There are still sceptics here who deny that the world is warming or that humans are responsible, but overall sceptics now take a different approach – but still one that seeks to undermine the IPCC consensus. Sceptics (often the same people) have shifted their public statements, and are now more likely to assert that we won’t get much warming after all, that the consequences won’t be that bad, or that policy interventions are unnecessary/undesirable/too expensive. The given line is often ‘the science isn’t clear’.
As I see things, I would have categorised your comments (and much of RTB’s commentary) on the fringes of this neo-sceptic group. Many of the arguments seemed familiar (e.g. the 1.5°C lower bound), Kevin Birdwell’s comments about non-CO2 factors, and the authors references (Lindzen, Pielke). That may seem shocking to you (given that, as you say, warming is happening, and humans are somewhat responsible), but my point is precisely that the sceptics are using different tactics depending upon the country, and change depending upon what the public accept. In this way it seems to track the strategies of big tobacco companies, with the aim being to protect their financial interests from regulation. That is how the one ‘camp’ tends to be seen across most of the world.
This is why it worries me so much that you and RTB seem to take the view that because there are two sides (in North America), the ‘middle way’ must be the ‘sensible’ or methodological one. That relies heavily upon the media/political culture which simply isn’t shared everywhere else.
On the science itself, I would have to ask a number of questions of Kevin Birdwell, but is he definitely a climate scientist? Judging by his bio:
http://computing.ornl.gov/cse_home/cms/resumes/birdwell_kevin.pdf
he seems to be a meteorologist, a group which we know is less expert than those who pimarily research the global climate:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/27/no-daily-caller-a-meteorologist-survey-does-not/197080
This is why I was a bit shocked to see the IPCC being given so little weight (and why I asked originally about the 5th report). The IPCC is a statement of the current consensus amongst the real experts, and I worry about treating it lightly on the basis of one other scientist. The IPCC report does have a lower bound climate sensitivity than before, but this is largely irrelevant, for two reasons:
1) The sensitivity is still expected to be about 3°C – the 1.5°C figure has been included as the IPCC used recent studies to claim it couldn’t be ruled out, but most studies still cluster around 3°C. We therefore really shouldn’t assume that the majority of research has been overturned (and should plan our policy at least on the basis that 3°C is the sensitivity to expect). (The claim about empirical evidence for the lower sensitivity has also been heavily critised by climate scientists – it seems to come mainly from Lindzen.)
More importantly,
2) Climate sensitivity isn’t a guarantee of the warming we will expect. Climate sensitivity merely explains what will happen to temperature if we double CO2. it is not guaranteed that emissions will stop rising after CO2 doubles, especially if we don’t take ambitious personal/policy action now. This is why many commentators do see us as being on a trend towards 3/4/6°C by the end of the century – because we simply aren’t limiting our emissions to a doubling. Of course, we would get less of a temperature increase with a lower sensitivity (we can only hope), but it will still go above 1.5°C if we more than double CO2. The IEA (of all people!) seem to think we’re heading for 4°C:
http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/7405/20130610/iea-reveals-global-warming-trend-temperatures-rocket-past-2-degree.htm
The real breakthrough of the 5th report was to make clear that there is an overall ‘carbon budget’ that we can burn without breaking through the 2°C barrier. On the standard assessment, we have about 30 years left, with a lower sensitivity a little longer. See e.g. the graphs here:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/oct/07/un-climate-change-panel-graphs-ipcc-report
or search for ‘www.trillionthtonne.org’.
It is also worth noting that the 50% of warming caused by humans is over the past century, and from memory I believe that the reason is higher solar output during the first half of the 20th century. For the period 1951-2010, the IPCC best estimate is that humans have caused 100% of the warming (some studies show >100% due to negative forcings).
This doesn’t all mean that we need to immediately start geo-engineering. But it does mean that we cannot postpone very serious action on emissions from fossil fuels. And this needs to be a message that Christians around the world are loudly proclaiming – not only as part of our mandate to care for God’s Creation, but also as a matter of justice for those poorer countries who are worst affected.
Tom, first of all, I do acknowledge there there are ‘camps’ of extremists. They may or may not be exclusive to the USA, but given the nature of the USA, it doesn’t surprise me it’s more apparent there. (I’m from the USA, but now live in Canada, and that distinction is pretty obvious on any number of topics.) And, there is certainly a political ‘yes it is, no it isn’t’ dynamic going on (absent of much knowledge, and playing heavily on agenda). I’m a bit alarmed that you report no contention in the UK, as this is a pretty big deal EITHER way.
If our worst fears are true, then obviously it is critical that we take action, which requires political effort. But there is an opposite problem. If global warming has been exaggerated, taking SOME of the proposed actions are very bad too, and it’s going to take political effort to stop them. (For example, I’ve read that just the small shift to partial bio-fuels might be leading to the death of a couple-hundred thousand people each year… is reducing the carbon footprint a bit worth that many lives? Imagine the impact bigger changes might have.)
So, rather than a climate skeptic, I’m climate-cautious. (Though, I admit that because I’m not an expert, nor have the time to dig into this deeply, I’m being influenced by both sides without as much critical examination as I’d like.) I want to be sure that any actions taken are analyzed as far reaching as we can, and that we’re not trading one damage for another which is just being ignored.
That said, there are some things that bother me, just on principal. First, I’m really uncomfortable with all this language of climate-deniers, crazy right-wing, all oil-industry backed, skeptics using tactics, advocates not having an agenda, etc. The same could be leveled at the other position (and I’m sure is), but it just isn’t helpful and only adds to the suspicion. Skeptics seem more often insulted than actually answered.
Second, it’s simply baloney that scientific consensus indicates truth, or that science is some kind of unbiased discipline, which never supports it’s own interests. NASA plays up the ‘search for life’ to get people excited about spending tons of cash on space exploration. Biologists go on TV and radio shows and excitedly talk about stem-cells and disease cures to drum up funding for expansion of the discipline. Scientific consensus recently thought ‘Junk DNA’ was the majority of the genome, and ID folks were ridiculed for suggesting purpose. And, keeping up the concern over global warming, true or not, certainly is of benefit to climate scientists and their careers.
Third, if you’ve ever looked at science news vs science journal articles, you’ll know that the media often blows the stuff out of proportion, in order to promote some agenda!
So, is there potential reason to be skeptical? Absolutely. Is the skepticism founded due to the actual data, maybe, maybe not. And given the wide error bars on various criteria, how this is being portrayed by the media, at least, is much more certain than scientists are, or at least should be.
For example, did you see footnote #16 in the IPCC report concerning sensitivity (which I understand to be a/the key factor). “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
Apparently, another criticism is that the summary for policy makers, as well as some of the major graphs in the IPCC’s report didn’t actually reflect the data IN the report. For example, this analysis claims a better reading would be, “temperature range of 1.25–3.0°C, with a best estimate of 1.75°C, for a doubling of CO2.”
http://www.thegwpf.org/oversensitive-ipcc-hid-good-news-global-warming-2/
Again, I’m all for reducing pollution, so long as there is an overall reduction and not just a trade-off. I’m all for advancing technology, and I have no specific love for fossil fuels. I love sport cars, but I’m just as happy with a Tesla as a Ferrari, if it drives well, or is reasonably practical for everyday cars. I helped my dad build a solar hot water heater when I was young. I love solar technologies, especially some of the solar-concentrating efforts in the SW of the USA, on a utility scale. I think some of Craig Venter’s work has big promise in the area of bio-fuels. But, we’re only *just* starting to get to a point where it makes any sense for *some* people without a bigger downside.
But, I’m not OK with someone getting a nice ‘green’ feeling in their comfy Western home because they pulled off some carbon footprint reduction, while a multitude are dying in some 3rd world place because of some policy change which didn’t take them into account. So, we need to keep studying the data, and being as honest as possible about it, while carefully (and I think that often requires, slowly), moving towards solutions. Hysteria motivates, but it doesn’t generally generate good results.
HI Steve,
I’ve left this reply far longer than I’d have liked! Sorry about that, I’ll try to make it a good one…
I’m still incredibly concerned by a couple of points in your response. The first is the suggestion that you’re ‘climate cautious’. I think a better characterisation would be ‘climate agnostic’. Your approach seems to be ‘we should act slowly’. This clearly assumes that the scientific consensus is incorrect; because climate scientists have repeatedly said that we need to act urgently.
As an analogy – imagine coming across someone in your evangelism who says that he won’t commit to Christianity – because there are lots of religions, and he hasn’t looked into them in any detail. Therefore he concludes that there’s probably some truth to all of them, and won’t take the step of committing to just one. You’d probably exhort him to investigate the claims of Jesus – and fast, because the stakes are so high.
I think Christians have similar responsibility when faced with the possibility of something as serious as climate change. We have a duty to investigate – and quickly.
The second point is that you keep talking about ‘error bars’ and ‘climate sensitivity’ – but I’m not sure you’ve really grasped my comments above. It is really, really essential to understand the following point:
–>Climate sensibility is not about what *will* happen to our climate.<–
Climate sensitivity is about what *would* happen if we *only doubled CO2*. But we might *more than double* CO2. Even if you are right, and climate sensitivity is lower than all the climate scientists I have spoken to/read currently think (about 3 degrees), it would still only give us an extra 10-12 years before the climate heats up to *exactly the same temperature* as with a higher sensitivity – because we are continuing to emit CO2.
Thirdly, of course scientific consensus doesn't indicate underlying truth. But I can't see that we'd be wise or responsible Christians if we acted on anything else.
As for the media/politics – I don't see why it would be so alarming. As I have said – there are people (not climate scientists) who deny the reality of climate change. But the mainstream is clear about the basic scientific facts. I don't see that as being any more alarming than any other scientific debate – we're not still having endless to-and-fros about whether smoking causes cancer, or whether air pollution (from fossil fuels!) is killing 30,000 people a year. When the science seems to be clear to most scientists, we accept it and debate policy. There is plenty of science that you wouldn't even consider wanting politicians to debate – it relies on the view that climate science is not settled. UK politics has wide access to scientific evidence, and that view is simply considered false by the vast majority of people – as it is across the rest of the world.
In fact, our main broadcaster actively tried to find a qualified climate scientist to debate the IPCC's latest report – and they just couldn't! There were simply no climate scientists in the UK who disagreed with the IPCC's report (or how the summary presented it). That's how strong the consensus is. It is the same as asking doctors to debate whether smoking causes cancer.
This is why I do think it is so important that we look at where people's views are coming from. In the UK, we do consider it very important to know if someone is being funded by those who have a financial interest in the outcome. Of course oil companies could have an interest in convincing people that climate change isn't serious – and in the UK we believe that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. That's why funding is important. And we can clearly see, as I showed above, that scepticism about climate change follows the money – it exists mainly in English-speaking countries, and comes from think tanks funded by industries with a conflict of interest, and media outlets allied to those think tanks. Why would a Christian, with an understanding of human depravity and self-interest, not think that such facts were relevant?
(As an off-topic example, just try this from a quick internet search:
"This effect is increased to 7.6/6.1 mm Hg, when studies that received funding from the sugar industry are excluded."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/286795.php
Studies funded by businesses consistently differ from independent studies when their financial interest is at stake. This applies to climate change as much as anything else.)
My final point – you seem to assume that reducing CO2 is complex or costly. I don't see why that would be the case. I could drive to Church tomorrow, or I could walk/cycle. With no costs/adverse consequences, I could reduce the amount of carbon I put into the atmosphere. The same applies to my eating habits – I could choose to eat lots of meat/dairy, and cause huge amounts of deforestation. Or, I could eat a more plant-based diet, and again reduce my impact. None of this requires any kind of systemic change, and should certainly be adopted by the Church.
And the thing I just cannot ignore, is that our brothers and sisters in churches all around the world are asking us to do precisely that. The church in the Philippines isn't debating the reality of climate change. They're bracing themselves for a super-typhoon for the third year running, and begging our rich, high CO2-emitting countries for mercy.
Hello, and thanks for the response. Simple answer; not a whole lot. My position is essentially that we should be taking the issue seriously, but be quite careful as it is a very politically charged issue, especially in the actions we take in an attempt to correct things. I’m not opposed to reducing pollution as we should be doing that either way. I’m not opposed to reducing our fossil-fuel based dependencies and coming up with better technologies, etc. But, I’m arguing for a methodical approach to it all.
The problem with the report (as I understand it… I’m no climate scientist), is that many of the factors involved in the models on which the results are based have huge error bars. To put it simply, it is POSSIBLE that if the worst case of all the factors is true, then there is a big problem to deal with (and maybe too late). However, if the lower end of the error bars is accurate (which, in fact, seems to better match our actual empirical evidence), then we might not have nearly as much to worry about as much of the warnings seem to claim.
For example, check the following articles by Kevin Birdwell on climate sensitivity (a major input to the models). “The Fifth IPCC Assessment Report (2013) puts climate sensitivity in the wide range of 1.5C to 4.5°C (in the Fourth Assessment of 2007, the lower bound was 2°C).” If the idea that the more data we collect, the worse things look, why expand the error bars? And, isn’t just a bit crazy to be making such strong predictions with error bars that huge? Maybe we should be thinking about worst case, but is this the presentation of it you see put out to the public? (Note: Kevin is a climate scientist, and certainly to crazy skeptic. I’ve heard him talk over the last few years, and he typically held the position that yes, there is global warming, and humanity is responsible for at least half of it.)
http://www.reasons.org/articles/climate-sensitivity-part-1
http://www.reasons.org/articles/climate-sensitivity-part-2
(If you search around, they also have older articles and podcasts on the subject, which IMO, were quite good.)
Is there global warming? I guess there is some dispute, but general agreement that there has been a slight rise in overall global temperature. Is this due to human activity? Again, I don’t think there is much debate among scientists that there is some human contribution. The problem comes with how much human contribution, where things are headed, and how quickly. And, then huge disagreement on what should be done about it… with some going to, IMO, dangerous extremes. We must be VERY careful with things which have a big impact on people, or might do serious damage to the environment (like seeding the oceans, etc.).
Hi there – I was wondering whether or not the latest IPCC report had changed your views about the relative convincingness of the ‘camps’, and on the extent and consequences of humanity’s behaviour?
Hey Tom, I’ll try to somehow get my response posted… if not here, you can leave your reply to this article over at TilledSoil.org and I’ll respond there. I accidentally posted the comment, not as a reply… and then tried deleting it and replying. Now Disqus seems to think it’s a duplicate post… so I’ll probably not be able to repost it without significantly editing it. 🙁 Sigh, I kind of hate these 3rd party comments systems, but at least Disqus is a far better idea than Facebook, etc. for login (which are phishing schools in the making).
It let me put it back in it’s original place. It just isn’t a direct reply to you. You’ll have to visit the post to see it. Sorry for the confusion.